| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Would it be worth it?
Mike Burns, Photographer
 |
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 8:12 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> Ok, I know this might be a bit of a personal preference but for the majority of you that read this blog and are professionals this question is for you.
Do you think it would be worth it if the majority of your work is low light/high ISO jobs ranging from mma and boxing to bands in dive bars to switch from the Olympus E-3 and E-30 to a Canon 7D or similar?
I know I have asked a question like this before, but I want to make sure that I am making the right move. I currently have a list of Oly gear although I do not have the 2.0 glass I rent them when needed. I have used pretty much the whole Zuiko line-up of lenses from the 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 to the 35-100mm f/2.0 and still not really happy with anything over ISO 800.
So, I guess the question is, if it were you would you dump all your Oly gear to start over?
Thanks |
|
Russell Rinn, Photographer
|
Georgetown | Tx | USA | Posted: 8:17 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> Mike, it seems that your answer in in your question. You state that the majority of your work is high ISO, yet you are not happy with the results of your equipment at high ISO. You've tried fast glass, presumably to allow you to ratchet down the ISO, but it still is not working. So...the next step is...? Maybe this is too simplistic of a view, but it seems this is the core of your issue.
Good luck. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 9:10 PM on 10.26.09 |
| ->> I'd save up first, and then do it. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:10 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> Mike, your situation is not unusual. Almost 40 years ago, I sold Pentax cameras. For many people, I thought the Pentax was a great piece of equipment. I was the #1 salesperson in the state of Florida. Great lenses, solid innovative camera bodies. I loved Pentax - and still do.
So, I shot Pentax, right? Wrong. I shot Nikon. Why? The Pentax motor drive batteries were D cell iirc, and fit in a long tube that went vertically into the motor. While the Takumar lenses were sharp, the pro lenses of the day were limited. If you wanted to shoot sports, Nikon blew my beloved Pentax out of the water.
You're at a cross-roads. If the camera you love can't do what you need it to do, then you either have to find a solution that allows the system to produce the images, or find a system that DOES what you want.
Generally speaking, it's easier and more practical to switch brands. Try Nikon, try Canon. If you decide on Canon, there's lot of used equipment available. At least go explore.
Let me know if I can help you at all. Remember, they are still nothing more than electronic paint brushes. It's still the nut behind the viewfinder that ultimately counts. |
|
Jamey Price, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 9:47 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> I dont know much about Olympus cameras but it seems like youre doing a lot of low low light work. It might be worth the investment in a D700 or something along those lines. Being able to shoot at ISO4000 or more without noise is invaluable and the second I have the money, I will be upgrading as well. What makes you happy, what will be the best choice for your career and what will be the best choice for what you shoot?
Good luck in finding your answer though :) |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:08 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> Back in the late 70's I started with the Olympus OM System, super sharp and super reliable. At that time I had an OM-1, OM-1n, Winder, Motor Drive, 28mm, 50mm, 135mm and a couple of crappy Vivitar Series 1 Lenses.
But I quickly found that If I wanted more professional support, I had to go with either Canon or Nikon.
I went with Nikon because I picked up a used Nikon F with the F36 Motor Drive and Battery Grip for $300!! The camera store gave me w whopping $235 for the Vivitar Series 1 Zoom Lens (Don't remember the Focal Length, but it was Garbage) and I went for it!! This was a plus for me, I paid less than $235 for the Vivitar Lens and I knew the previous owner of the body, and I knew it was a good buy. Eventually I ended up owning both Nikon and Canon Cameras there during the Film Years.
In my humble opinion, look around for some good used gear. Make sure you do some good research and you buy good reliable Cameras and Glass.
And I'm available to help you find good gear and make some recommendations. I used to sell camera gear too, I sold Nikon Gear at Del's Camera in Santa Barbara, CA in the early 80's. |
|
Tom Suarez, Photographer
|
Austin | texas | USA | Posted: 11:34 PM on 10.26.09 |
| ->> Mike, I think it would be worth it. I just bought a 7D and have used it at iso's all the way up to 12800. I have shot indoor volleyball and the files are really clean at iso 5000. If you are interested here is a link to some of the photos. All the recent stuff was shot with the 7D. If you click on the photos and hover your mouse in the upper right hand side you can see all the exif data such as the iso. www.tomsuarez.net |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:02 AM on 10.27.09 |
->> "worth it" is a very vague term and highly subjective
Would you get far better high ISO image quality if you switched to something like a Nikon D3 or D700 ?? (Sorry but I'm a converted Nikon shooter so no 7D for me) Yes you would, and I'd wager a better handling camera, wider range of glass etc.
would it be "worth it" though ? Well that is not so easy to answer. How much do you think you could get for your used equipment ? Probably not gear that has that high of demand so I think you'd probably take a bit of a hit selling it, then you'd have to invest more money into the new kit.
So your looking at probably 4 or 5 thousand dollars easy just to get a basic kit which could handle most assignments.
Would that investment lead to more clients and/or more income ? Clients love to hear how you just got a great new camera and how the images are going to be better than ever and so forth. Its always "yeah that sounds great....but its not going to cost me any more is it ?"
I don't know your clients or what you make, thats your business, not mine, but you do have to ask yourself if it makes sense to go spend a ton of money on new gear if its not going to improve your bottom line.
If your current gear is paid for and works, and your clients are happy, then basically everything your making is profit.
Profit is something we as working photographers seem to enjoy not making because anytime we get ahead we go buy all new gear and start over back in the hole again lol.
I know many times it feels like I'm only working to fuel my never ending equipment purchases. In any other business such a practice would be deemed darn foolish but new toys are just hard to resist I guess for many of us.
So bottom line is yes you could get better image quality, and yes its lots of fun when the UPS guy brings you a bunch of new glass and a camera body or two, but will your increased revenue from new gear exceed the expense of new gear ? |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:09 AM on 10.27.09 |
->> Since you don't appear to be adverse to renting, rent a 7D/50D and a 100/2 or 135/2L or whatever the Nikon equivalent is and shoot them side by side with your Oly then look at the files.
I looked at your fight galleries on your website, and though the images aren't that large they noise doesn't look unacceptable. To me, your Valhalla 10 galleries at ISO 1600/3200 look better than the MMA in the valley galleries shot at ISO 800. |
|
Ric Tapia, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 3:00 AM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> Mike, sell ALL your equipment! And then go out and spend as much money as you can loan, borrow or steal. And buy all new Nikon or Canon equipment. Is that the answer you have been looking for? |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 5:51 AM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> Starting from scratch (switching to a new body and lens) will be a painful purchase monetarily speaking. If you make decent money off from your photos and feel like you are losing money currently due to either image IQ or lack of being able to cover certain poor light events, then I say upgrade to either Nikon or Canon. Rent both and see how they work for you. Personally I'm a Nikon shooter and if I were starting from scratch I'd get a D700 (small camera without grip when you want to go lightweight and great ISO performance). Nikon pro level glass is expensive right now (I'm assuming Canon is as well) so expect a good sized hit to the wallet. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:01 AM on 10.27.09 |
->> One thing I forgot to mention that Ric's post reminded me of.
IF you're thinking about doing this because you don't see anyone else shooting with Olympus and think that somehow, that you're disadvantaged, you need to really THINK this through. I will admit I don't think the Olympus system is used in PJ; I think it's strength is in fine art, portrait and weddings.
Photographers don't think about this much; but the manufacturers will target specific kinds of photography. Canon and Nikon because of their size can do it all - but that doesn't mean that other companies can't compete within specific niches.
The advice about renting and going used if you switch is good one.
Another sobering drill to go through: If you're profitable, do a analysis of what this will cost you using all new, new bodies and used glass etc. Get your accountant involved if you have one. Just like the manufacturers, who decide what products to develop and invest in based on expect sales (aka return on investment =ROI), you need to do the same thing. If it cost you $25000 to switch and takes you 5 years to get the ROI, would it make more sense to rent?
On the other hand, if the ROI is recouped in a reasonable amount of time, then that's a different story.
Make sense? |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 9:18 AM on 10.27.09 |
->> @Mark, you are right the Valhalla images at 16/3200 do look better that is because those are the ones my partner shot with his Canon 40d and 24-70 f/2.8L. The MMA in the Valley are shot with my Oly E-3 and the 35-100 f/2.0.
@Ric, wanna buy a whole lotta Oly gear? Prices to move FAST!!
@Michael, Your right on the head with that. I have shot a couple weddings with the Olys and they are nice. Well the outside weddings the inside weddings were a bit tough but I made it work. The deadlines with being a sports shooter is what I am mainly worried about. There is no way I can be on the sideline, baseline, cageside, ringside and have images to an editor without PS and lots of time.
I plan on selling what I have and just starting over with a 7D and either a 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 F/4.0. When a longer lens is needed I will rent like I do now until I have enough money saved to buy one.
Thanks everyone and if your interested in Oly gear hit me up!
Mike |
|
Robert Beck, Photographer
 |
Carlsbad | CA | USA | Posted: 2:31 PM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> Nikon produces the gear most capable of making great images in low light....The D3 or, now, the D3s. Save and get it. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:38 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> Mike:
Let me give you my PERSONAL OPINION!! Remember, PERSONAL!!
I have heard some great things about the 7d, but...
My PERSONAL experience with the 24-70 was really bad!! I had several copies of this lens and I kept sending them back due to bad Resolution, Back focus and overall Image Quality. The last one, CPS CA tested right out the box prior to sending it to me and guess what?? They had to "Adjust" it, it failed QC!! That's when I gave up on the lens!! I shot a product shoot with it (Large Product) and the corners were unusable. Then I shot the same shot with the Nikon 24-70, and they were perfect!! Remember, that was MY experience and MINE alone!! You might get lucky and get a great one!! I failed at that...FIVE TIMES!!
Y |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:19 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> Robert and Yamil are BOTH right, Mike. I had switched to Canon from Nikon and switched back. IF low light is the challenge, you would be silly not to at least try a D3.
There are D3 refurbs floating around. Ballpark is $3799 give or take. The only thing more expensive than switching is switching twice. Take it from someone who has been there.
As for the 24-70mm, my experiences mirrored that of Yamil. You should try several options before you buy, and the D3 should be one of them.
Michael |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:41 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> To add to Michael's post...
The D700 is a very good Option too!! I have one of them to backup my D3's and it's identical in IQ and High ISO Performance to the D3!!
Y |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 8:18 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> Ok, I have decided to jump ship and switch from my trusty Oly's and hopefully extend my career and make better images.
No, which way should I go Canon or Nikon. I am debating between the Canon 7D and the Nikon D300s.
Can someone/everyone give me thier $.05 on each and which would be a better rig for low light/high ISO shoots. I plan on starting with the 24-70 f/2.8 on either camera and build from there. When a job comes along that I need a long lens I plan on renting it until I can buy one.
Thanks for everyone who has listened to me convince myself of something that I have known all along. |
|
Ric Tapia, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 9:44 PM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> NOT ANOTHER Canon vs Nikon debate! |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:07 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> I have already give you my $.08 on the 24-70 Canon.....
Y |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:17 PM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> If you check photographybay.com they just tested the 7d versus 300s . The 7d was hands down better at high isos. The other thing to consider is the glass and what you want . If fast primes are your thing canon wins hands down. On the other hand canon does not match up the 14-35 zoom of nikons. Canons full frame body is lighter then the 700 the 5d mk11 that is. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:44 PM on 10.27.09 |
| ->> Nikon's 24-70 was and is, without a doubt, the worst piece of photography equipment EVER developed. You would be a fool to buy one. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:47 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> Did someone Break the 7th Seal???
Do I see all Four Horsemen???
Who are you and what did you do with Chuck??
Are you a Pod Person Impersonating Chuck?? |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 10.28.09 |
->> I can no longer tell when Chuck is serious or not.
But, I can tell you that the D700 is as good as the D3 at low light. And, for less than $3000, it's an amazing camera. That, and the pop up flash does really well for it's size.
If I *had* to shoot in ultra low light, and I didn't already have one, the D700 would be at the top of my list of purchases. I even like it slightly more than the D3, but the D3 is more useful for me as a sports photographer.
Robert Beck is giving great advice. I still want to be him when I grow up. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 4:58 PM on 10.28.09 |
->> Nikon D700 or the D3(s) or the Canon 5D mkII are all better than the D300s or the 7D for low light.
If your going to be investing a big chunk of money why go half way and get a noiser crop sensor from either brand when there are smarter choices out there ?
A D700 with grip will give you 8fps and the same amazing high ISO IQ of the D3 for about half the price. Its the same FX sensor.
I'm not saying the D300 or the 7D are bad cameras, in fact both are excellent for daytime sports when you want some extra reach on a long telephoto but if your main use is low light shooting a full frame sensor from either brand is going to be the way to go.
Or Canon's new 1D mk4 might be good as well but I think $5000 camera bodies might be getting out of what your budget may allow.
D700 and a 24-70 would have you well on your way and I don't think theres any better bang for the buck |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|